Judge Will Settle Argument Over Witnesses In Consent Decree Case

By Gina Macris

Sometime in September, the state of Rhode Island drafted a settlement agreement, aimed at avoiding upcoming federal court contempt proceedings, for continuing violations of a 2014 civil rights consent decree case affecting adults with developmental disabilities.

But as the state’s lawyers were planning to show the proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), pre-trial legal sparring moved front and center, and the chances for any settlement to resolve the contempt charges remain unknown.

In an email chain made public in a court filing, the state’s lead lawyer told a counterpart at the DOJ on Sept. 30 that his team hoped to confer with DOJ lawyers in the following days about the proposed settlement.

Those emails also showed the two sides sparred over pre-trial procedures, coming to an impasse over the deposition of witnesses in the contempt hearing, scheduled to begin Oct. 18. A longstanding lack of funding and staff to carry out compliance with a 2014 consent decree would be a be a key issue in the contempt hearing.

The DOJ asked Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court to intervene, and compel the state to make available a total of 15 witnesses, including the House and Senate fiscal advisors, in time for the DOJ to depose all of them in accordance with a pretrial deadline already established in a court order.

McConnell has scheduled a teleconference with the lawyers for 4 pm on October 7.

In asking McConnell to intervene, the DOJ included a Sept. 30 chain of emails between DOJ lawyer Victoria Thomas and two state lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

In the emails, DeSisto and Hilton pushed back the start of depositions, in the process postponing a deposition that had already been scheduled with the state’s chief auditor in the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition, DeSisto and Hilton said they could not make the House and Senate Fiscal Advisors available for deposition at all. Sharon Ferland holds the House post and Stephen Whitney advises the Senate.

Hilton wrote: “Without more information as to the reasons you are seeking to call Sharon and Stephen as witnesses, we cannot make a determination on whether we could agree to make them available. There very well may be privileges that need to be preserved by way of a motion for protective order. Additionally, we do not have the authority to accept a subpoena on their behalf.”

DOJ’s Thomas replied: “We are seeking the testimony of Sharon and Stephen based on the Court Monitor’s opinion that they have valuable information relevant to the funding provision of the Consent Decree. We have now exhausted our good faith efforts to resolve this dispute and will be filing a motion to compel shortly.”

Earlier in the email chain, DeSisto had mentioned the proposed settlement:

“As we discussed in last evening's phone call,” he wrote to Thomas, “it is my hope that in the next few days we can confer regarding the terms of settlement. We are waiting for some feedback from Tony (A. Anthony Antosh, the independent court monitor) in this regard. Once we receive his input, we would like to have a settlement conference with you, maybe as early as tomorrow.”

Thomas replied:

“We are eager to see the State's written settlement proposal and to conference with you tomorrow. That said, while we remain hopeful that a settlement may potentially resolve our contempt motion, we must preserve our litigation rights.” Thomas continued to press for assurances on the depositions.

In its contempt motion, The DOJ has stated that, if necessary, it is prepared to present evidence that the state “failed even to ask its Legislature for a sufficient appropriation” and that it “failed to make efficient use even of the resources it had – for example, by failing to modify State rules and incentives that favor providers of less integrated services over providers of more integrated services.”

The DOJ has proposed an escalating scale of fines, from $500,000 on the first day of each of the first two months to $50,000 a day beginning on the 70th day. At that rate, the fines would add up to about $1.5 million a month.


DOJ, RI Spar Over Contempt In Olmstead Case

Federal Courthouse in Providence

Federal Courthouse in Providence

By Gina Macris

The state of Rhode Island told a judge it cannot be held in contempt of a 2014 civil rights consent decree seeking to integrate adults with developmental disabilities in their communities because of circumstances beyond the state’s control.

But the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) says that the state has only itself to blame for its failure to comply.

The state’s “persistent choices to under-fund the system have created a dramatic provider shortage” that has left the target population isolated, the DOJ said in a counter-argument submitted Friday, Sept. 10, to the U.S. District Court.

The “refusal to adequately fund the Consent Decree is precisely the kind of self-imposed inability to comply” that undermines the state’s arguments in its defense, the DOJ said.

The decree stems from a 2014 finding by the DOJ that the state violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by relying too much on sheltered workshops paying sub-minimum wages and isolated day care centers, which kept people with disabilities out of mainstream society. The Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed the rights of people with disabilities to receive support in their communities to give them a chance to live regular lives.

The DOJ further cites warnings of an independent court monitor a year ago that the state will be unable to comply with the consent decree by 2024 unless it came up with a multi-year plan to overhaul its developmental disabilities system, which for a decade has encouraged segregated care over integrated services. Such a plan has not been forthcoming.

The state’s lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton, submitted arguments Sept. 1 in response to a DOJ motion two weeks earlier that asked the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court to find the state in contempt of the consent decree and impose fines ranging up to $1.5 million per month. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. has scheduled a hearing the week of Oct. 18 through Oct. 22.

The state’s lawyers maintained the state could not meet benchmarks for integrated employment and other criteria because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as resistance by adults with developmental disabilities themselves to work and non-work activities in the community.

But in its reply Sept. 10, the DOJ said the state’s characterization of the population “paints an inaccurate and offensive picture of people with developmental disabilities” and “reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature, purpose, and obligations of the Consent Decree.”

DeSisto and Hilton, meanwhile, also argued that numerical targets for employment of adults with disabilities were not required by the consent decree, even though, as the DOJ said, documents show that state officials have admitted the opposite in numerous statements to the court since 2014, in writing or in person..

The state’s lawyers also maintained the state cannot be held in contempt until after the agreement expires on June 30, 2024 – an interpretation the DOJ said is unheard of in litigation involving system-wide reform.

In picking apart the state’s position over 28 pages, the DOJ said the state is urging the court “to adopt an interpretation of the consent decree that is “at odds with the decree’s text and purpose,” the DOJ said.

The state maintained the consent decree “imposed what could only be described as a cultural shock on the targeted community. After years of receiving services in “non-community” settings, “they are being told that their lifestyle must change,” the state’s lawyers said.

The DOJ disagreed. Rather than being told what they must do, the DOJ said, those eligible for services and their families have the right to make informed choices after receiving education and support about what working and enjoying leisure activities in the community might mean for them.

The state’s own data show that it “dramatically overstates” the resistance to integrated services, with 80 of 1,877 persons, or 4 percent, opting out of integrated services through a formal variance process, the DOJ said. And it cited a report from a court monitor in 2016 who had said he found “strong broad-based acceptance of the goals and desired outcomes of the consent decree.”

Similarly, the DOJ lawyers rejected the state’s argument that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented compliance with the annual employment targets in the consent decree. The pace of new job placements had slowed significantly more than a year before the onset of COVID-19, the DOJ said.

While the pandemic did make compliance more challenging, the state made “minimal efforts” to serve the consent decree population during the pandemic, the DOJ’s civil rights division argued.

“Given the availability of enhanced federal matching funds for providing integrated Medicaid services like those the Consent Decree requires, the State has the opportunity to increase funding for integrated employment services, provide the full amount of integrated day services to each target population member, and enhance wages to attract the required number of service providers,” the DOJ said. Its memorandum is signed by Rebecca B. Bond, chief of the DOJ’s civil rights division, as well as trial attorneys expected to litigate the case in October.

The state did earmark $39.7 million in federal-state Medicaid money to raise the wages of workers and their supervisors by $2 to $3 an hour in the current budget, a roughly 15 percent increase, but only at the conclusion of court-ordered negotiations between state officials and providers.

DeSisto and Hilton, the state’s lawyers, also said the state is finalizing the language in a request for outside proposals “for evaluation and implementation of new rate and payment options for (the) Developmental Disabilities Services System.” The preparation for the request for proposals indicates that BHDDH plans to go out to bid through the state purchasing system, which can take several months.

The state last conducted a rate review in 2010 and 2011, but the General Assembly did not follow the recommendations of the consultant, Burns & Associates. Instead, it set dozens of reimbursement rates for private providers roughly 17 to 19 percent lower than Burns & Associates recommended, with the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) saying that it still expected providers to maintain the same level of service.

In November 2018, a principal in Burns & Associates, Mark Podrazik, testified before a special legislative commission that that a rate review was already overdue. Rates should be reviewed every five years, he said.

A few months later, BHDDH hired NESCSO, the nonprofit New England States Consortium Systems Organization, to analyze Rhode Island’s developmental disabilities system from top to bottom.

Although the NESCSO contract called for a rate review and analysis of alternatives to the state’s fee-for-service reimbursement system, NESCSO was asked to present options for change but to make no recommendations.

The BHDDH director at the time, Rebecca Boss, said the department wanted to expand its analytical capability and make its own choices going forward.

The 18-month contract, which cost $1.1 million, produced a final report and supplementary technical materials which, among many other things, said the provider system was significantly underfunded. Since the report was completed July 1, 2020, BHDDH has remained silent on its findings, and has not exercised options for renewal of NESCSOs services.

In their memorandum, the state’s lawyers said that “the intention of the rate review process is to strengthen the I/DD system and services provided to individuals, as well as to address provider capacity to deliver those same services. Thus, the State can and will at hearing clearly demonstrate that it has been ‘performing its obligations’ under the various sections of the Consent Decree.”

The DOJ has scoffed at that notion. The DOJ said in its original filing in August that it is prepared to show the “State failed even to ask its Legislature for a sufficient appropriation, and that the State failed to make efficient use even of the resources it had – for example, by failing to modify State rules and incentives that favor providers of less integrated services over providers of more integrated services.

$10 Million CARES Act Money Set As Emergency Aid For RI DD Providers

By Gina Macris

(This article has been updated.)

The state of Rhode Island has agreed to set aside $10 million from the federally-funded CARES Act as a short-term safety net for private providers of developmental disability services, who are in “financial distress” as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The state negotiated the sum with the providers, working under an order from Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court to ensure the private agencies don’t close their doors before the end of the fiscal year June 30.

McConnell formally approved the plan in an order Dec. 23, with an accompanying memorandum recognizing the “extraordinary efforts of the State", including Governor Gina Raimondo’s office and several departments of the executive branch, as well as State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, who participated in the negotiations.

“It is heartening to see the large state apparatus come together to assist those most vulnerable in our community, and to help fulfill the promises of the Consent Decree,” McConnell said.

The order also affirmed the state’s commitment to “work with providers to develop a three-year plan to improve outcomes for individuals with I/DD, and to include an investment in the I/DD provider network in the Governor’s FY22 state budget plan as part of this work.”

The continuity of the private provider system is essential to the state’s ability to comply with the consent decree, 2014 civil rights agreement requiring the integration of adults with developmental disabilities in their communities by 2024.

The agreement between the state and the providers establishes an “I/DD (Intellectual and Developmental Disability) Provider Support Program” of grants to cover pandemic-related losses of some three dozen private agencies, which have been forced to drastically reduce daytime services at the same time they have been saddled with sharply higher costs for safety measures necessary to protect residents of group homes.

The application process for funds and the distribution of the grants will run on an accelerated timeline, with initial information flowing to providers Dec. 21 and documented grant requests due back Dec. 28, according to the filing with the U.S. District Court. Funding is to be available Jan. 8. Agencies must document how they are using the funds by Jan. 30.

The program aims to expand daytime services for adults with developmental disabilities, who in large part received center-based care until the pandemic hit and forced providers to close these facilities. Some daytime services, including employment supports, have continued, but the grants are intended to enable providers to go into clients homes as well as build on existing individualized programs.

“Home-based service alternatives require a large and flexible workforce,” according to a summary of the grant program submitted to McConnell. Providers have had difficulty finding workers, having to pay up to $30 an hour to staff some group homes.

The program is intended to enable group home staff to better protect and care for residents, some of whom have pre-existing medical conditions and are particularly susceptible to being hospitalized with the virus when they otherwise might receive care in a less restrictive setting. Ensuring hospital beds are reserved for only the sickest patients is a public health priority, the summary said.

Agencies receiving grants must agree to comply with all COVID-related public health recommendations and several other conditions that further the goals of preserving and increasing services and supporting frontline workers who provide direct care.

The specific requirements detail a commitment to essential services, outreach to those in a variety of living situations, and making “reasonable attempts” not to lay off more than 50 percent of employees.

The summary said that it will require “broad cooperation” to overcome the problems COVID-19 has caused for the developmental disability system, which will continue to face challenges as the situation evolves.

“This partnership represents an opportunity to extend that cooperation to build strong resilience for the current crisis and improve health outcomes for all Rhode Islanders in need of I/DD services and supports. The State of Rhode Island looks forward to working with critically important I/DD providers, consumers, and other stakeholders to establish and carry out this partnership,” the summary concluded.

The court-ordered negotiations grew out of a Nov. 24 hearing before Judge McConnell. The testimony laid out the ways the COVID-19 pandemic has undermined providers’ ability to serve their clients and threatened the entirety of their operations. (See related article.)

The state’s lawyers said the negotiations were a “collaborative effort” facilitated by the independent court monitor in the case, A. Anthony Antosh.

The state participants included representatives of the governor’s office, the Department of Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals, and members of the General Assembly.

The providers were represented by the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, a non-profit trade association with about two dozen members, about two thirds of the three dozen agencies providing services to adults with developmental disabilities in Rhode Island. Other providers also participated, according to the state’s private lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice engaged in the talks but took “no position” on the agreement, according to a separate statement they submitted to the court.

Read the documents filed by the state here.


Federal Judge Asks RI For Quick Action To Increase DD Funding And Avoid Court Order

John J. McConnell , Jr.

John J. McConnell , Jr.

By Gina Macris

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. has made it clear he is prepared to use the power of the U.S. District Court, if necessary, to ensure the state of Rhode Island provides adequate funding for adults with development disabilities.

That population of about 4000 people is protected by a 2014 civil rights agreement set to expire in 2024, assuming the Court approves.

Time is already drawing short for the state to make the changes necessary to achieve compliance by the 2024 deadline. The process would require approval by the General Assembly and would have to be running smoothly for a year before the state is released from federal oversight.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has added urgency to the situation, because the state’s compliance depends on some three dozen private service providers that are in such shaky ground financially that they won’t survive the next six months without extra cash.

That was the picture presented to McConnell at a hastily-called virtual court hearing on Zoom Nov. 24.

McConnell gave state officials and advocates until Dec. 18 to figure out a solution to providers’ short-range fiscal problems.

McConnell said he saw “two levels of crisis:”

  • an immediate one that threatens the viability of social services for adults with developmental disabilities over the next six months, with conditions changing “second by second, moment by moment, and day by day.”

  • a system-wide crisis around the state’s ability to meet the requirements of the 2014 consent decree.

Since last summer, the state has been engaged in a court-ordered planning effort to devise solutions to the systemic issues and present McConnell with a long-range implementation plan by June, 2021.

But the judge said he called Tuesday’s hearing in response to a preliminary fiscal report from an independent monitor, who said the burdens of coping with the coronavirus pandemic posed more immediate threats to service providers.

Cooperative Solution Preferred

McConnell asked the monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, to convene a “collaborative” public-private group to come up with an immediate funding solution by December 18. The collaboration should include state officials, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, and representatives of the community, including the head of a provider trade association, Tina Spears, McConnell said.

Lawyers for the state, including Kathleen Hilton and Marc DeSisto, framed it as a continuation of an active collaboration that already has resulted in one hazard pay initiative.

McConnell said he much preferred a solution devised by the state and its partners in the community, rather than having to resort to a court order.

But he made it clear that one way or another, he considers it his responsibility, as a judge in the “third and co-equal branch of government,” to protect the population with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Rhode Island.

“The advisable way is for the good and smart people to sign off and figure out how to do it,” the judge said.

After hearing from budget director Jonathan Womer, health and human services secretary Womazetta Jones, and other state officials, McConnell said “there is no doubt we have an awesome team in the executive branch whose hearts and minds and souls are in the right place.”

McConnell acknowledged that “quite a bit of money” ($20 million) has been allocated to developmental disabilities during the pandemic, but he said “it has become inadequate as the system currently exists.”

The state “may have fiscal handcuffs on,” as Womer, the budget director, explained, but “for the Court, it’s of no import where the money comes from.”

The state and “all its entities” are part of a consent decree that enforces the civil rights of adults with developmental disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, McConnell said.

“But make no mistake,” he said. If necessary, “the Court will use all its powers to order the state and all its entities to come up with the money,” he said.

Effects Of Pandemic “Unrelenting”

The trade association representative, Tina Spears, director of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, (CPNRI) illustrated the current problem in human terms.

In the first three weeks of November, a single provider agency experienced COVID- 19 infections in four of its 18 group homes. Sixteen staff members and eight group home residents tested positive, with four residents requiring hospitalization. Three staffers had to quarantine at home, and one staff member died, Spears said.

Meanwhile, the agency’s day programming, which included expansive work-related supports and other services, is running at 30 percent capacity, she said, running into debt at an exponential rate.

“The situation on the ground is unrelenting,” she said.

Kayleigh Fischer, Director of Budget and Finance for EOHHS, laid out the various federal initiatives, totaling $20 million, that have helped service providers stay afloat during 2020.

And Womer, the budget director, explained the fiscal challenges posed by COVID-19, which has decimated revenue and has saddled the state with a projected budget deficit of $250 million to $275 million by the end of the fiscal year in June, depending on who’s counting.

“It’s confusing. There are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of federal guidance that’s constantly changing,” he said.

“We have more restrictions on spending now because of the pandemic,” Womer said. “We are reducing spending anywhere we can to contain the deficit,” he said.

The state can spend federal grant money like the $1.6 billion allocated to Rhode Island for coronavirus relief, Womer said, but among the exclusions are spending for workforce bonuses, as well as replacing state revenue in the federal-state match for the Medicaid program.

Medicaid is the program that funds the developmental disability service workforce.

Spears Highlights Below-Market Funding

Spears acknowledged that without the emergency funding the state has allocated so far, the developmental disability service system already would have folded.

She said she appreciates the fiscal challenges Womer described, but “this has been the rationale for underfunding our workforce for the last decade.“

In 2011, the state deliberately set reimbursement rates for private providers of developmental disability services below market costs, Spears said. “This fact cannot be overstated,” she said.

The rate-cutting, which resulted in layoffs and sharp wage reductions, has been documented in an exhaustive $1.1 million study commissioned by the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals, (BHDDH), and by a separate special legislative commission.

Over time, Spears said, the flawed fiscal foundation of the reimbursement model has made it increasingly difficult for providers to recruit and retain qualified workers, a situation that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Today’s average pay for direct care workers is $13.18 an hour, but provider agencies say they must pay $25 to $30 an hour to get workers to go into COVID-positive group homes or homes where residents are in quarantine, according to Antosh, the court monitor.

Antosh has proposed the state deploy $2 million a month from unused developmental disability funding to boost the pay of direct care workers to $20 an hour and cover other expenses related to COVID-19.

Separate from Antosh’s proposal, Spears said, CPNRI has asked Governor Gina Raimondo for COVID Cares Act relief funding for incentive pay for workers in coronavirus-positive group homes and for emergency relocation funds. These funds would be used for temporary quarters to make sure that COVID-negative group home residents can be separated from housemates who are infected.

She did not provide additional detail on that pandemic-related funding request.

Instead she focused her remarks during the hearing on separate recommendations for addressing the structural problems in the fee-for-service reimbursement model.

The state should raise entry-level wages to $17.50 an hour immediately, with a boost to $20 an hour in the fiscal year beginning next July 1, she said. Spears said the state has received an increase in the federal share of the federal-state Medicaid program which has not been passed along to service providers.

In addition, there should be an expedited, yet comprehensive, review of the rate structure that includes the cost of implementing policies mandated by the 2014 consent decree, Spears said. The current rate structure does not support the agreement, she said. She said changes in the rate structure should be ready to be incorporated in the budget that begins next July 1.

The DOJ has found that the overhaul of the developmental disability service system adopted in 2011 incentivized segregated care, in violation of the Integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

During the court hearing, Womazetta Jones, the Health and Human Services Secretary, said she wants to work with service providers to do what is feasible and equitable, given all the needs of vulnerable populations.

McConnell replied to Jones:

“As a citizen, I have long admired your service,” he said.

But he pointed out that Rhode Islanders with developmental disabilities have a protection that other vulnerable populations do not.

The DOJ found, and the state agreed, that those with developmental disabilities have experienced violations of their constitutional rights “that can’t continue,” the judge said.

“I don’t want to disagree with anything, but I want to focus on why we are here,” McConnell said.

DOJ, RI Ask Judge To Settle Major Dispute Over Compliance With ADA Integration Mandate

By Gina Macris

A dispute has arisen between Rhode Island and the federal government over a key phrase in two court-approved agreements which require the state to provide people with developmental disabilities full access to jobs and community activities.

Both sides have asked U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. to rule soon on what it means for the state to achieve “substantial compliance” with two companion civil rights decrees signed in 2013 and 2014.

The details of the dispute focus on the first of the two agreements, which is scheduled to expire in six months – July 1,2020 – and is known as the Interim Settlement Agreement (ISA).

This agreement applies only to students and former students of the Birch Academy, a developmental disabilities program at Mount Pleasant High School in Providence which once served as a feeder for a now-defunct sheltered workshop in North Providence called Training Through Placement (TTP).

The ISA sought to resolve a finding by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that large-scale segregation of developmentally disabled youth and adults at Birch and TTP violated the Integration Mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The matter became the nation’s first “sheltered workshop” settlement.

How McConnell decides to define “substantial compliance” in the context of the ISA will also impact the broader 2014 consent decree, intended to protect all Rhode Island youth and adults with developmental disabilities from a lifetime of day care or low-paying piecework.

In the ISA, both the state and the city of Providence were defendants until late September, when McConnell ended federal oversight of the city. He received glowing reports of a transformed Birch Academy, which today sends students to productive internships that broaden their experiences and sometimes result in regular jobs.

But the state still has detailed obligations under provisions of the 2013 agreement to help former Birch students and former TTP workers find jobs.

On Dec. 23, the DOJ notified McConnell that “it disputes that the state will be in substantial compliance with the Agreement” by July 1 “without a course-correcting change in the State’s approach to compliance.”

The DOJ asked the judge to direct the interim court monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, to “begin working with the State immediately to develop and implement a plan for completing the (2013) Agreement’s highly achievable remaining outcomes and schedule a status conference with the Parties in January 2020 to address next steps.”

A week later, on Dec. 30, lawyers for the state challenged the DOJ, saying the federal government has not documented its specific objections or offered a “clear working definition” of substantial compliance for either the 2013 or 2014 agreements.

The state is already working with Antosh on a definition of substantial compliance, its lawyers said. The lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen A. Hilton, asked for a formal hearing in January on the issue of substantial compliance, rather than the informal status conference requested by the DOJ.

DeSisto and Hilton said they would be prepared to submit evidence and sworn testimony that the state is meeting its responsibilities under the terms of the ISA.

The agreement itself says only that “substantial compliance is achieved when the state and the city have implemented all of the provisions of the Interim Settlement Agreement for all individuals in the target populations.”

DeSisto and Hilton wrote that “in this context, ‘implement’ means that there are mechanisms and/or policies put into effect of sufficient means to carry out its (the state’s) requirements of the particular benchmark at issue.”

For example, there remain 15 individuals protected by the ISA who have employment goals but have never been employed in the community, DeSisto and Hilton said. The reasons include poor health or challenging behavior, family resistance, legal or forensic issues with the individuals, or extended absences from service programs.

(The state’s memorandum did not specify the total number of persons counted in the ISA, but past reports from the state and the independent court monitor put the total at a maximum of about 125, with fluctuations over time.)

The state could have requested “variances” to exempt these 15 individuals from employment and remove them from the ISA caseload, the lawyers said, but officials have no interest in pursuing this route.

Instead, the state wants to meet the individuals’ needs, “where they are at this time, and (work) on an individualized basis, towards the ultimate goal of employment,” DeSisto and Hilton wrote. They said the state has ”competence” to meet the employment goals, whether or not those goals are actually reached, suggesting that this “competence” demonstrates substantial compliance.

DeSisto and Hilton asserted that the state has achieved full compliance in 52 provisions of the ISA and substantial compliance in the remaining three provisions. But their memorandum to the judge does not describe those respective provisions.

The memo also referred to findings of the previous court monitor, Charles Moseley, who in August assessed the city’s compliance with the agreement but left the state’s compliance with numerous provisions “to be determined.”

DeSisto and Hilton indicated that Moseley followed up on his findings regarding state compliance in an Oct. 1 email with a new report attached. The lawyers included what appears to be an index of Moseley’s findings in three categories; substantial compliance, noncompliance, and “to be determined”, but they did not include the Oct. 1 report itself. Nor does that report appear separately in the court file.

DOJ And RI Can't Agree On Next Consent Decree Monitor; Judge McConnell To Decide

By Gina Macris

For more than four months, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the state of Rhode Island have been unable to agree on a new monitor of the state’s compliance with a 2014 civil rights consent decree affecting adults with developmental disabilities.

The stalemate now leaves the choice to U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., who will consider apparent differences between the DOJ and the state over the extent of the monitor’s authority in making his selection. McConnell must choose from up to six candidates – a maximum of three names submitted by each side.

In the absence of a monitor, whose duties include mediation of disputes, a disagreement simmered between the state’s consent decree coordinator and an Employment First Task Force. The argument, concerning the the independence of the task force, escalated to the point of prompting a letter from the DOJ to the state’s lawyers.

The monitor’s job became vacant with the retirement of Charles Moseley, who notified all concerned on July 9 that because of health concerns, he would step down effective Sept. 30.

The state and the DOJ had 30-days to agree on a replacement once Moseley gave his notice, according to the consent decree. After 30 days, the decree says, the judge makes the selection from the candidates submitted by the two sides.

McConnell initially set a deadline of Sept. 30 for the two sides to conclude discussions, but at the end of September, he extended the deadline to Nov. 25, requiring the DOJ and the state to check in with him every two weeks on the progress in talks.

Earlier this month, he asked the two sides to submit statements on their respective views of the role of the consent decree monitor. That deadline also was extended, from Nov. 19 to Nov. 22.

The statements appear similar in many details but suggest that the DOJ envisions greater independence for the monitor than does the state. The DOJ has asked for a phone conference with the state and the judge on the matter of the monitor’s selection.

During the time there’s been no monitor, comparatively small differences between the state’s consent decree coordinator and an Employment First Task Force (EFTF) have coalesced into a dispute over the independence of the Task Force that reached the ears of the DOJ in at least one telephone call.

The EFTF was created by the consent decree to serve as a community-based advisory group to the state, the monitor, and the court. Its members are drawn from many non-profit organizations working to improve the quality of life of adults with developmental disabilities, as well as representation from those receiving services and their families. .

The flap appears to finally have been settled with a Nov. 13 letter from the DOJ to the private lawyers representing the state in the consent decree, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

The letter said EFTF members informed the DOJ that the state’s consent decree coordinator, Brian Gosselin, has told the task force not to communicate with the DOJ without Rhode Island’s oversight.

Gosselin, queried briefly by Developmental Disability News after an EFTF meeting Nov. 19, which he attended with Kathleen Hilton, one of the state’s consent decree lawyers, said it was a “genuine misunderstanding.”

The DOJ said in its letter that it hoped it indeed was a misunderstanding that was at the heart of the disagreement:

“We hope that there is simply a misunderstanding or miscommunication here, as such an instruction would be inconsistent with the role of the Task Force as set out in the Consent Decree,” wrote DOJ. While the consent decree required the state to create the task force,” the letter said, the consent decree ”does not contemplate that the State will supervise its work, dictate its findings, or limit its communications. The Task Force’s members are independent stakeholders whose role is to assist in successful implementation of the Consent Decree, including by providing recommendations to the Monitor and State officials.”

“Indeed, any limitation on open communication would undermine the intended autonomy of the Task Force. We ask Rhode Island to help ensure that the channels of communication between the Employment First Task Force, the United States, and the Monitor are uninhibited,” the letter said. It was signed by trial attorneys Jillian Lenson, Victoria Thomas and Nicole Kovite Zeitler.

The letter was not discussed at the most recent EFTF meeting, but there appeared to be some tension between Gosselin and members of the task force around a discussion that began with EFTF questions about the details of the state’s latest quarterly compliance report and ended with the state’s own questions about ways the task force could do more to work in the field to present the benefits of employment.

Members of the task force indicated they do what they can in the community, but added that they are a group of volunteers, most of them with full time jobs. (Some of them are also family members with responsibilities for individuals with special needs.) Task force members emphasized the advisory nature of the committee, echoing the DOJ letter.

If a monitor were in place, he or she might be expected to mediate differences between the consent decree coordinator and the EFTF before they got the point of requiring a lawyer’s letter from one side to the other. In fact, the consent decree explicitly authorizes the monitor to mediate, although the monitor’s recommendations for settling disputes are not binding, unless they happen to overlap with requirements of the consent decree, according to the DOJ.

As to the monitor’s powers, one of the main points made by the DOJ is its view that the monitor is not bound by the preferences of the state or the DOJ, unless the preferences are also required by the consent decree itself. By the same token, the state is not bound by the DOJ’s preferences and vice-versa, according DOJ view.

The state does not spell out that distinction between either sides’s preferences s the requirements of the consent decree. The differences between the DOJ and the state are highlighted in red or blue type in a in an extra document submitted to McConnell by the federal government.

In the highlighted document, the two sides differ on the monitor’s independence in evaluating situations in which there is a change in the relevant facts, like fluctuating numbers of people in the consent decree “target populations”, or subgroups, who are required to be placed in jobs in the community. (There are four “target populations,” depending on whether or not individuals ever were employees of a sheltered workshop or whether they were in high school or young adults at the time the consent decree was signed.)

If, for example, the number of target population members is lower than the number of target population members required to be placed in integrated employment, the state says that monitor will make recommendations or ask advice from the court on how to evaluate the state’s compliance in light of the changed numbers.

The DOJ, however, just asks that the monitor report the changed numbers to the court.. Its preferences would not put any qualifiers on the monitor’s authority to evaluate the new situation.

There is agreement that the annual budget for the court monitor, including expenses any consultants that may be hired, should not exceed $300,000, as required by the consent decree. The state pays the monitor.

But the DOJ points out that the consent decree allows the monitor to ask for increase that would exceed the $300,000 limit. The state’s document omits that point. Any expenditure over $300,000 would require approval by the state, according to the consent decree.

In many respects, the submissions by the state and the DOJ are identical.

Read the state’s view of the monitor’s role by clicking here.

Read the DOJ’s view of the monitor’s role by clicking here.

Read the DOJ comparison of the two documents by clicking here.


Views Differ On Role of State Coordinator In RI Olmstead Consent Decree Case

By Gina Macris

The Rhode Island General Assembly’s leading advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities says there’s an inherent conflict in a state employee also serving as state coordinator of the multi-agency efforts to comply with a 2014 civil rights consent decree.

“If you’re working for the state, I don’t know how you work for the 4,000 people” the consent decree seeks to protect, said state Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, who also chairs a special legislative commission studying Project Sustainability, the state’s fee-for-service reimbursement system for private providers of developmental disability services.

But the principal lawyer for the state in the consent decree case says that legally, it’s immaterial whether the consent decree coordinator is a state employee or an independent contractor. For many reasons, a state employee is the best choice at this stage of compliance, Marc DeSisto, the lawyer, said in a statement.

From 2016 until earlier this year, the consent decree coordinator, a position required by the agreement, was an independent contractor. The most recent contractor, Tina Spears, left the post in April. She was succeeded by Brian Gosselin, the Chief Strategy Officer for the Executive Office of Human Services (EOHHS.) Gosselin also continues to do his salaried job.

“The consent decree coordinator is a critical role in ensuring compliance with the consent decree and court orders. The responsibility includes coordinating across all state agencies,” DiPalma said in a recent telephone interview. “I don’t know how that’s done on a part time basis” by someone who also has another job.

Since the post was established in 2015 there have been five consent decree coordinators, including Gosselin, who has served as the interim coordinator twice.

In a statement, DeSisto said “the state as a whole is responsible for compliance, not a single coordinator.”

There is no legal impediment to a state employee serving as the coordinator, nor is there a requirement concerning the number of hours a week the coordinator must spend to fulfill those duties, DiSisto said.

“Over time and in recognition of the progress and evolving dynamics concerning compliance, we have refined the role of the coordinator to drive and coordinate the state’s ongoing compliance efforts,” he said.

An EOHHS spokesman said Gosselin was appointed because of his familiarity with the consent decree and because he would bring stability to the leadership of compliance efforts as the consent decree enters the second half of its 10-year span.

“The state cannot afford to have further turnover in the coordinator role,” David Levesque, the EOHHS spokesman said in an email, “especially during a time while there is going to be (a) Court Monitor transition.” Charles Moseley, the original monitor, has retired, and a new one has not yet been selected.

“A state employee is more likely to remain in this position than an independent contractor,” DeSisto said.

DiPalma agrees that “it’s critical that we have stability in that (coordinator’s) position, but no rationale has been given for why we have had five coordinators in the last five years. Without that information, I don’t know that the coordinator we have now is going to last any longer,” he said. He said his comments did not reflect any judgment of Gosselin.

Levesque, the EOHHS spokesman, said, “EOHHS is fortunate to be able to tap someone of Brian’s skill set and experience, particularly his intimate knowledge of the consent decree process in Rhode Island.”

He and DeSisto each said that the U.S. Department of Justice and Moseley, then the monitor, agreed to Gosselin’s appointment.

Gosselin will continue to be paid $117,482 a year as chief strategy officer, Levesque said, and has a team of staffers to support him in that role.

The independent contractors in the job, Mary Madden, Dianne Curran, and Spears, each made $100,000 a year.

Madden’s and Curran’s contracts said they each had the “full authority” of the Governor and the Secretary of EOHHS to oversee and coordinate compliance efforts in all state agencies

Beginning in December, 2018, changes in Spears’ job description and her contract suggest that her role might have become more circumscribed.

In December, the job description was amended to require the coordinator to make “weekly written reports to management team and EOHHS leadership team detailing coordination progress, achievements, challenges and upcoming milestones.”

Two other changes in the job description called for the coordinator to use a “mutually agreed upon escalation protocol to swiftly address issues of concern” and to use a “state approved communications and engagement plan when representing the state at public events and with stakeholders.”

The coordinator was to have a “designated team member” in each of the three primary agencies responsible for consent decree compliance as a point of contact for responding to “issues and concerns.” And the coordinator was required to include a “management team member” on all email communications related to the three respective agencies. The three agencies are the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals; the Office of Rehabilitation Services (part of the Department of Human Services) and the Rhode Island Department of Education.

At the end of Spears’ one-year contract in January, 2019, it was amended to include the revised job description and extended six months, to June 30, 2019.

Spears, who is now executive director of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island (CPNRI), a trade association of private service providers, offered her perspective on how the job description changed.

Spears, interviewed in August, said the consent decree coordinator has a unique role in coordinating activities among three separate state agencies to advance compliance with the consent decree, and there is a “natural tug-and-pull kind of dynamic” that can run in several directions.

“There were times when that (tug and pull) became challenging. I’m also the kind of person who’s pretty direct about what I expect and when it becomes challenging I usually address it. So we worked on agreement on how to develop a communications strategy” and a protocol to follow when there was disagreement, she said.

The job at the CPNRI became open when the former director, Donna Martin, announced her departure effective March 1. Spears said the new job was an opportunity to be a leader in systems change “in a way that really elevates our mission, elevates our voice, and elevates our practices.”

Spears, who has parented a child with extensive disabilities and medical issues, has worked at the Rhode Island Parent Information Network as a peer family mentor and government lobbyist. She also has worked as an analyst in the Senate Fiscal Office, where she said she learned about the consent decree and found her calling at the policy level. She left the Senate job to become consent decree coordinator in January, 2018.


RI Consent Decree Monitor Will Draw Up Proposed Judicial Order to Ensure Adequate State Funding

By Gina Macris

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of U.S. District Court signaled during a hearing April 10 that he is prepared to act to ensure that Rhode Island complies with a requirement of a 2014 consent decree that calls for “timely” funding of integrated services for adults with developmental disabilities.

But it is not yet clear what judicial action might look like in relation to the language of the consent decree, which does not quantify compliance in terms of dollars and cents.

Governor Gina Raimondo has proposed a developmental disabilities budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 that would cut $18.4 million in federal and state Medicaid funds from current spending limits on privately-operated developmental disability services for adults and another $3 million from a state-operated network of group homes.  

That reduction comes on the heels of an already-underfunded system of services and would “permanently derail compliance with the consent decree,” said Jeffrey Kasle, lawyer for nine service providers, who spoke during the informal hearing, or “status conference” at the invitation of an independent court monitor.

The monitor, Charles Moseley, said he would  draw up a list of proposed funding-related actions for the judge to consider. Marc DeSisto, the state’s lawyer, and Victoria Thomas, who represented the U.S. Department of Justice, each said they wanted to review the proposal before the judge takes action.

If there is no consensus, McConnell said, he will hold a formal hearing and take evidence before issuing an order.

Since 2016, when he began reviewing the consent decree, McConnell has tried to make information about compliance accessible to the public, insisting that periodic conferences be held in open court and stressing the informality of the proceedings.

The review on April 10 was no exception, as the lawyers and state officials spoke from a podium facing the audience in the towering, mahogany-paneled courtroom, so spectators could better hear the proceedings. McConnell, wearing business clothes instead of his judicial robes, sat near the court stenographer just inside a circular bar that normally separates litigants from the public. 

The informal atmosphere, however, belied the gravity of the funding issue, which McConnell called the “elephant in the room,” and its implications for judicial action.

The monitor, Moseley, and lawyers for the DOJ and the providers all concurred in their concerns over funding. 

Officials of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) said they needed better data to make a case for a bigger budget and noted that $116 million more will have been spent on developmental disabilities during the Raimondo administration,  between 2015 and 2019, than was spent from 2010 to 2014.

It was in 2014 that Rhode Island was found in violation of the integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by relying on a segregated system of work and non-work activities that could survive on significantly less staffing that is mandated today through the consent decree.

Kasle, the providers’ lawyer, noted that the current administration at BHDDH, led by department director Rebecca Boss and the director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, Kerri Zanchi, have shown a commitment to collaborating with providers that is the “best in a decade.”

But much of the state’s current compliance with the consent decree occurs because the private providers are doing the work, Kasle said.

“If all they can do is keep people safe,” he said, consent decree compliance will “fall apart.”

A decade ago, direct care workers made $3 to $5 more an hour than minimum wage, Kasle said. The legislative efforts to raise wages in the last two years, which added $11 million to the budget, are appreciated but they have just kept the workers on a par with the minimum wage, he said

For providers,  who can pay only $11 or $12 an hour, “it’s almost impossible to fill jobs,” Kasle said.

And if the state is to integrate individuals with developmental disabilities in the community, allowing them a choice in how their programming will be achieved, the state will need more direct care workers, he said.

Victoria Thomas, a lawyer for the DOJ, said that on the most recent site visit in February, she and her colleagues spoke to a provider who had had to lay off several middle managers because of budgetary constraints.

Employees have seen their salaries cut; paid vacation was eliminated, and workers have had to increase their contributions to health care, Thomas said.

The judge, meanwhile, asked Boss, the BHDDH director, whether the state can comply with the consent decree if Governor Raimondo’s budget for the next fiscal year is enacted without any changes.

Boss said she didn’t know the answer. Nor could she say whether BHDDH could comply with the consent decree if no cuts were made and current spending was maintained. 

Boss said BHDDH is “committed to implementing the consent decree. We want every individual to live in the community as they wish.”

Last fall, Boss submitted her department's budget request for the fiscal year beginning July 1 far higher than what Governor Raimondo later proposed to the legislature.  Boss asked for a total of $278.8 million in federal and state funds, or $28 million more than what Raimondo ultimately submitted to the General Assembly.

In a cover letter, Boss wrote at the time that “any further reductions could have further significant repercussions financially and operationally for the department further impacting some of the most vulnerable citizens within our state.”

For the fiscal year beginning July 1, Raimondo has proposed $250.8 million for developmental disabilities, which is $6.1 million less than the bottom line enacted by the General Assembly for the current fiscal year.

The proposal of $250.8 million is also $21.4 million less than current spending levels. Because of current cost overruns, Raimondo has proposed adding $15.3 million to the existing budget of $256.9 million, for a total of $272.2 million, to fill the budget gap through the end of the fiscal year June 30.

DOJ: No Merit to Rhode Island's Objections to Compliance Fund

By Gina Macris

Saying Rhode Island’s objections have no merit, federal lawyers for a second time have urged a U.S. District Court judge to set aside state dollars to fund the so-called “sheltered workshop” consent decree – or to fashion whatever remedy he sees fit.

“The State’s objection to funding the Consent Decree is concerning and brings into questions its commitment to making the changes required,” lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justicewrote in a May 16 filing with the Court.

“Thus this Court must act to provide adequate incentive to the State to fund theConsent Decree, which it undoubtedly has the power to do,” the DOJ lawyers wrote to Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.

The DOJ’s plan would require the state to pay $5,000  each day it misses various compliance deadlines, and an additional $100 a day for each person whose services are delayed or interrupted as a result of inaction, with a cap of $1 million a year.

As an alternative to paying into the proposed Consent Decree Compliance Fund , the DOJ lawyers suggested that McConnell  come up with his own remedy.

The government’s remarks came in a filing in which it expressed surprise that the state is now offering “meritless objections” to paying into the proposed fund to  fulfill its responsibilities under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In 2014, a DOJ investigation found the state for decades had illegally segregated adults with disabilities in sheltered workshops that paid sub-minimum wage, and in day programs cut off from the community. Rhode Island then agreed to federal supervision over a ten-year period to transform its system to emphasize supported employment in the community, adopting an “Employment First” policy.

The 2014 agreement marked the first such consent decree in the nation aimed at turning around daytime services that violate the 1999 Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the decree is just one part of a much broader, aggressive push begun by the Obama administration in 2009 to enforce the  Olmstead order, which said that Title II of the ADA requires agencies to serve individuals with a variety of disabilities, day and night, in the least restrictive environment that is appropriate.

In Rhode Island, the DOJ’s civil rights division earlier in May asked McConnell to put the court monitor in the case in charge of a Consent Decree Compliance Fund, citing the state’s continued failure to implement reforms.

The court monitor, Charles Moseley, would decide how to spend the money to benefit adults with disabilities.

Marc DeSisto, the state’s lawyer, objected, saying, in part, that the proposal amounts to a contempt order without the procedural rights enabling a defendant to show it made its best efforts to comply but was thwarted by forces beyond its control.

On May 16, the DOJ replied that “a finding of contempt would be appropriate at this juncture,” but its proposal does not ask for that. Instead, the Consent Decree Compliance Fund is envisioned as a vehicle for funding the consent decree, something the state said it wanted to do, according to the latest DOJ arguments.

During the last few months, all sides have agreed – in open court – that the developmental disabilities system does not have enough money to meet the consent decree requirements.  

Moseley, the monitor, told McConnell at one point that if the state didn’t meet certain benchmarks now, it would be impossible to achieve overall compliance by the time the decree expires on Jan. 1, 2024.

It was the state’s lawyer, DeSisto, who initially approached the DOJ and the monitor to ask for an evidentiary hearing so that the judge could gauge the state’s progress on compliance and decide what yet needed to be done to put the state on track to meet long-term goals.

At the hearing, held April 8, the state could not provide an accurate census of the individuals covered by the consent decree, the DOJ noted, but it did present evidence about a plan for achieving compliance going forward.

Now, the state is objecting to its own plan,  the DOJ lawyers said.

“After two years of noncompliance,” federal lawyers wrote, “it is appropriate and necessary, in the absence of commitment by the State to the basic compliance measures outlined in the Proposed Order, for the Court to take action.”

DOJ Seeks up to $1 Million a Year from RI For Consent Decree Violations; State Objects

By Gina Macris

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking penalties of up to $1 million a year from the State of Rhode Island if it does not move immediately to provide the job-related support services and day community programs for adults with developmental disabilities like it promised two years ago.

Employment-related services are at the heart of a 2014 consent decree in which the state agreed to shift away from reliance on sheltered workshops and segregated day programs and instead move toward integrating adults with developmental disabilities into the larger community. 

After two years of“failed outcomes and missed deadlines,” the state has shown that “compliance in this case requires accountability measures, not just deadlines,” according to a proposed order drafted by DOJ lawyers for the review of U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. 

 In response,  Marc DeSisto, lawyer for the state, called the DOJ order a “pre-determined contempt sanction ” that denies the state procedural safeguards, including a provision in the consent decree that allows the state to show it put forth its“best efforts,” but failed to comply because of factors beyond its control. 

The state did present evidence of its efforts in a hearing April 8. The DOJ argued in its request for sanctions that the “hearing revealed– and the state admitted – that it has only been through this Court’s continued attention and involvement that the state has taken any real steps toward compliance.”

The Justice department lawyers said the financial sanctions will “facilitate compliance” by addressing a barrier the state itself has identified – lack of funding. 

Without the Consent Decree Compliance Fund to provide “consequences for violations, the proposed order could end up being just another plan that the state fails to implement.” according to the DOJ filing. 

The judge has not yet responded to the DOJ proposal, submitted May 6, and DeSisto’s response, filed May. 12. 

McConnell made it clear from the bench just two weeks ago, however, that he would take “swift and dramatic” action to enforce compliance, holding the state responsible without distinguishing between the Governor and the General Assembly. 

The General Assembly is heading into final budget deliberations during the next three to four weeks.  The May Revenue and Caseload Estimating Conference has projected that the state will have $47.5 million more in revenue than Governor Gina Raimondo counted on in February, when she submitted a combined $9-billion fiscal plan for the remainder of the current fiscal year and the next one.

It remains unclear how much money the state needs to correct a structural deficit in the developmental disabilities budget and keep pace with the requirements of the consent decree during the next fiscal year. 

Raimondo has proposed an additional $24.1 million for developmental disabilities through June, 30, 2017, with $19.3 million of that total coming from reductions in residential costs. So far, very little of those savings have materialized, according to information the state Department of Behavioral Health, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) provided to the Senate Finance Committee about three weeks ago.

The savings depend on voluntary moves by some 300 group home residents into shared living arrangements with families throughout the state. Shared living has been available in Rhode Island for about 10 years, with 267 individuals taking that option at the end of the last fiscal year..Since July 1, 2015, the number of shared living arrangements has increased by 21, .according to the most recent figures made public by BHDDH.

Even if the added $24.1 million can be assured and the General Assembly approves Raimondo’s request, it is not clear whether that sum would be enough to satisfy the requirements of the proposed court order

 Neither the latest DOJ filing nor the consent decree itself puts a number on the cost. The decree says only that its requirements will be “fully funded.”

The proposed order takes a highly prescriptive approach, setting out a series of detailed benchmarks and deadlines for the remainder of the year, most of them during the next six weeks. 

The DOJ’s proposal was signed by Vanita Gupta, head of the civil rights division, and other officials, including trial attorneys Nicole Kovite Zeitler and Victoria Thomas. 

For each goal the state fails to achieve on time, it would be required to contribute to the Consent Decree Compliance Fund at a rate of $5,000 a day for as long as it remains in violation. In addition, the state would be required to pay $100 a day for each person affected by the consent decree “whose employment or integrated day services are delayed or interrupted as a result of violation of this order,” according to the DOJ’s language. 

At the evidentiary hearing April 8, there was much testimony about individuals aged 18 to 21 with developmental disabilities whose whose applications for adult services languish until shortly before they turn 21, leaving insufficient time to put a good program of adult services together. When BHDDH finally determines that the young adults are eligible for funding, they often go from the routine of a busy school day to sitting at home doing nothing, according to testimony.  

Finding appropriate services from a private provider is a a challenge for families. Agencies routinely refuse new clients because BHDDH does not them the full cost of providing the necessary supports.

If the proposed order is accepted by the federal court, the court monitor in the case, Charles Moseley, would oversee compliance and determine the amount due to the Compliance Fund. The monitor, in consultation with the DOJ and the state, also would decide how the money would be used to “fund consent decree activities that directly benefit target population members,” according to the DOJ’s filing. 

DeSisto, in his response for the state, argues that the proposal improperly delegates the authority decide individual fines to the monitor, when it should be the prerogative of the Court. As proposed, he said, the state would only be able to appeal after a penalty has been assessed. 

The corrective action topics and corresponding deadlines:   

Tools For Verifying Compliance

  • May 30: The state would report to the DOJ its progress in developing a continually updated or “live” database that would allow federal officials to see how money is spent on required services for each person affected by the consent decree – at least 3400 people.

  • June 30: The state would provide federal officials access to the database or a list of entries from which the judge, the monitor, and the DOJ could select to verify compliance.
  • July 5: The monitor would give the state the list of records federal officials se;ect for verifying compliance. 
  • July 12: The state would turn over the records the federal officials sought.  For example, federal officials would seek to determine whether all young adults who left school during the 2015-2016 school year had supported employment placements in the community by July 1, as required by the consent decree.

Funding Employment-Related Services 

  • July 1: The state would implement a new model for reimbursing service providers that is flexible enough to cover the costs they incur. The current reimbursement system pays only for the time that workers spend in face-to-face contact with clients but not other activities like seeking out potential employers.
  • July 1: In funding an array of services for a particular consumer, BHDDH would earmark some funds for supported employment. Currently consumers must give up something else to get employment-related services.  
  • July 1: The state would “appropriately increase salaries, benefits, training, and supervision for employees of private agencies who work directly with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities
  • July 1: The state would implement at least some performance-based contracts with service providers that link funding to numerical targets and implementation timelines for “quality” job placements.
  •  Dec. 31: The state would show evidence that all service providers have signed performance-based contracts.
  • Dec. 31: The state would file with the court examples of weekly activity plans used by each provider of community-based day services that has received additional funding for those supports required by the consent decree.  

Assessment of Individual Need and Funding

  • June 1: BHDDH would amend its policy for determining an invidual’s need for services and supports to make it clear that this assessment process, called the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS), remains separate and apart from considerations of individual funding levels.

  • June 30: BHDDH would file with the court agendas or meeting minutes that demonstrate that all SIS interviewers have been trained in the change to the policy.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

  • June 1: The state would finalize a plan for ensuring that representatives of BHDDH and the Office of Rehabilitation Services of the state Department of Human Services (ORS) consistently attend annual educational planning meetings for high school students with developmental disabilities, with an eye toward their transition to adult services
  • June 30: BHDDH, ORS and the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) must implement ongoing training in the use of career development plans and must provide ongoing supervision to ensure that the plans are utilized as envisioned by the consent decree
  •  June 30: RIDE must train all school census clerks to accurately report the number of career development plans in place
  •  June 30: The state would hire a Program Developer and Employment Specialist

Communications

  • June 1: The state would finalize a detailed communications plan in which some information is disseminated to the public and other information is sought from the community.

Organizational Activities

  •  June 1: The state would finalize a detailed project management plan for consent decree activities, showing the respective responsibilities of BHDDH, RIDE and ORS. 

  •  June 1: The state would finalize a similar plan for engaging with individuals moving from school life to adult services, with the roles of each of the three agencies delineated.

The proposed order also requires the state to catch up with back pay it owes the court monitor, Moseley, and the state’s consent decree coordinator, Mary M. Madden, and to pay them on time in the future.

At the April 8 hearing, Madden said she had not been paid since she was hired in January. At the same time, Moseley, who began the job late in 2014, said he had received his first check at the end of March, 2016. 

 

Judge in Disabilities Case to Mull Costly Sanctions Against RI

By Gina Macris

U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. said May 2 he is prepared to take “swift and dramatic action” if the state of Rhode Island fails to adequately fund a 2014 consent decree intended to correct longstanding  violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

U.S. District Court RI

U.S. District Court RI

Nicole Kovite Zeitler, lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, said she plans to file a formal request  asking the judge to order the state to contribute to a “consent decree compliance fund” unless adequate funding is secured by “a date certain” through the budgetary process, now underway in the General Assembly.

Neither Zeitler nor the judge put a specific dollar amount on the cost of the consent decree, although McConnell said he wants to see the money in Governor Gina Raimondo’s budget proposal enacted “at a minimum.”

Zeitler and the state’s lawyer, Marc DeSisto, will take one week to decide whether they can jointly submit a proposed order to McConnell, according to an informal schedule the judge approved from the bench.

If the two sides cannot work together, the DOJ will draft its own proposal. McConnell will hear arguments and then make a decision. The date of the next hearing has not yet been set.

The developmental disability system in Rhode Island has been underfunded for a decade, Zeitler said.

Moreover, she said she is concerned that the cost of the consent decree is being misrepresented in budgetary discussions. 

Families fear that the state is shutting sheltered workshops and providing nothing in their place, and “we share those concerns,” she said.

Zeitler, meanwhile, said the cost of the consent decree is being characterized in budget hearings at the State House as $1.8 million, but the consent decree requires changes throughout the developmental disability system.

The sum of $1.8 million happens to be one line item in the budget of the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) for subsidizing one-time start-up costs incurred by direct service providers who convert to community-based services from the segregated employment and day programs that the DOJ found in violation of the ADA.

 

Impact of Budget Plan Unclear

In the next 14 months, Raimondo wants to put an additional $24.1 million into private agencies that provide most of the direct services to adults with developmental disabilities, but whether her budget actually will achieve that goal remains open to question.

The way the budget document is now written, $19.3 million of that sum would come from savings in residential costs as occupants of group homes move into less costly shared living arrangements with individual families throughout the state. The proposal counts on 100 group home residents making the transition by June 30 on a strictly voluntary basis and another 200 moving in the next fiscal year, which runs from July 1 to June 30, 2017.

In the last ten months, however, only 21 individuals have entered shared living arrangements, accounting for a projected savings of about $200,000 in the current fiscal year, according to BHDDH figures.

There are other uncertainties about the budget.

The independent monitor in the case, Charles Moseley, and the DOJ are looking for a reconfigured method of reimbursing service providers that would allow them flexibility to individualize community-based services while requiring that they meet performance targets.

The new reimbursement model would come with increased funding to the agencies, but BHDDH director Maria Montanaro told the Senate Finance Committee last week there isn’t enough money in the Governor’s budget plan to extend this methodology to all the service providers. Instead, Montanaro proposed a pilot program involving a “subset” of the service providers.

A spokeswoman for the provider agencies, Donna Martin, said she “respectfully disagreed” with Montanaro’s  approach. 

“If we target certain agencies (for pay hikes), we will not be able to recruit staff for any other program,”  said Martin, executive director of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island (CPNRI) .

“We are facing an incredible staffing crisis,” she told the Senate Finance Committee.

 “Our staff are working minimum wage jobs. We are competing with McDonald’s” for workers, Martin said.

According to the current reimbursement rules, BHDDH pays service providers only for the time clients spend in direct contact with daytime support staff. That person-to-person interaction must be reported for each client and each worker, in 15-minute increments, throughout the day. Agencies are not paid when clients are absent, for whatever reason.

Job-scouting activities, in which a service provider might meet with a potential employer, are not part of the standard funding allocation package for individual clients.Clients who want employment supports must give up some hours in another category to get this funding. 

Until 2011, service providers received a set per-person allocation for a bundle of services that could be individualized, depending on a client’s needs.  Martin indicated that providers need a similarly flexible arrangement going forward to meet their obligations under terms of the consent decree.


Montanaro, meanwhile, said during the Senate Finance Committee meeting that a recent planning exercise came up with a $30 million price tag for applying a redesigned reimbursement model to all the service providers. She said that price tag was “impossible,” at a time when the department faced a $7 million deficit in the current budget.

Delays in Eligibility Decisions

Meanwhile, a backlog of applications for adult services that has caught the attention of the court could put additional strain on the budget that is not yet defined.

A BHDDH official told parents last week that there is a “very significant backlog” of pending applications for eligibility. At an average annual cost of $50,000 per client, an increase of 100 to the BHDDH caseload would add $5 million to the BHDDH budget.

BHDDH has been under pressure from the court to determine eligibility for young people promptly as they approach their 18th birthday, when they are defined by law as eligible for adult developmental disability services as long as they meet certain criteria.  

Since March, the Consent Decree Coordinator, Mary Madden, and other state officials have met with representatives of applicants for adult services who have experienced “inordinately long delays” in getting eligibility determinations as well as “receiving inadequate communication about the progress of their applications,” according to a report to the court submitted by the state last week.

“Those individual cases have been resolved,” the report said, but Madden told the court Monday the backlog still exists. She could not say how many applications are stuck in the pipeline.

Action Items Long Past Due

Many of the questions put to Madden and to Jennifer Wood, Deputy Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Services, had to do with pending consent decree action items that are long past due.

The state and the monitor were to have settled on a protocol for reporting compliance by Oct. 1, 2014, but it became common knowledge to dozens of individuals following the implementation of the consent decree that Moseley was having trouble getting access to BHDDH data throughout 2015.

Wood reported Monday that a confidential electronic data base allowing the monitor to track compliance according to each individual affected by the consent decree will go online in 2017, although an interim solution, in a quarterly report, will be available July 1.  

A Quality Improvement initiative was to have been launched by Nov. 1, 2014, but it is still waiting for the appointment of a quality improvement director. Funding for the position has been authorized. Each individual affected by the consent decree was to have an individual career development plan by Jan. 1 of this year, but those are not all in place.

The performance-based contracts that Montanaro said would be part of a new pilot reimbursement program with a portion of the service providers were to have been implemented system-wide by Jan. 1, 2015. 

A public education plan to explain the requirements and the philosophy of the consent decree was to have been up and running Sept. 1, 2014.

BHDDH officials submitted what they believed was the final version of the public education plan to the monitor on April 1, but Madden told the monitor Monday that “events of late have caused us to think how many more people need to be involved.”

She did not elaborate. BHDDH officials who hosted a “town hall” meeting with families and consumers in Warwick last week were met with a wave of hostile comments about the consent decree and disability services.

 

 

 

Court to Hear Evidence Friday on RI Compliance with Olmstead Decree

By Gina Macris

The state of Rhode Island says it is in “substantial compliance” with a 2014 consent decree  mandating a decade-long transformation of services for people with developmental disabilities to conform with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

That assertion, made in a compliance report filed April 1 in U.S. District Court, will face close scrutiny in an evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 8 before Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.

The judge also has in hand a recent report from the court monitor in the case, Charles Moseley, that expresses doubts about the state’s ability to meet employment targets in the decree or sustain them over time. The decree remains in effect until Jan 1, 2024.

Other filings submitted this week say the state developmental disabilities agency delays services until young people reach the age of 21 – or later – in violation of state law.

One of the statements also says there is a dearth of job development services available to individuals with disabilities, because the state does not fund these supports. Instead, the state expects service providers to shift money from other funding categories to pay for job development.

In a joint motion filed March 1, Moseley and lawyers for both the state and the U.S. Department of Justice identified three issues that could stand in the way of full compliance: a lack funding, too few placements in community-based employment and other integrated activities, and insufficient leadership necessary to fulfill the requirements of the consent decree.

A month later, the state’s report says it has:  

  •   Put the necessary interdepartmental leadership in place, at an annual cost of $591,244.
  •   Exceeded current targets for supported employment.
  •  Has remained “fully committed to providing sufficient funding to effectuate the goals and targets in the consent decree.” The report cites millions of dollars spent since 2014 and proposed by Governor Raimondo in budgets submitted for General Assembly approval for the remainder of this fiscal year and for the next year.

The state identified more than 3,000 adults in segregated programs and secondary-school special education students who are currently covered by the decree.

In terms of employment goals, the decree requires relatively modest targets, starting with perhaps 150 new jobs a year, depending on how many of the job seekers are eligible high school students in a particular graduating class.

At its heart, the agreement requires the state to fundamentally transform its approach to daytime services for adults with developmental disabilities, and to show exactly where it is putting its money. Most of the population affected by the consent decree has worked in sheltered workshops or stayed in segregated day programs in violation of the 1999 Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the right of people with disabilities live and work in their communities under Title II of the ADA.  

Among the key budget items the state cited in its April 1 report is a proposed $5 million increase for the wages of private agency staff during the next fiscal year; it would hike workers’ pay by about 45 cents an hour.

The “Enhanced Payments Direct Care Staff” would provide financial incentives to providers who commit to achieve targets for placing people with developmental disabilities in jobs according to timelines that satisfy the consent decree, according to the state’s report. 

The labor force working directly with people who have intellectual challenges makes an average of about $11.55 an hour, according to a spokeswoman for the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, which represents 23 private agencies that provide most of the services in Rhode Island.

Agencies operate at a loss for each worker they employ, because the state does not reimburse them for the full cost of employer-related taxes and other benefits, according to the spokeswoman, Donna Martin, who was interviewed about Governor Gina Raimondo’s budget proposal in February.  The $5 million proposal does not contain a provision for employer-related costs.

 

DD System Under Financial Strain

BHDDH director Maria Montanaro, meanwhile, has acknowledged that past cuts in reimbursement rates have left the private provider system “fragile,” according to a Providence Journal report on her testimony before the House Finance Committee in early January. 

Providers report that the cuts have forced them to reduce wages, resulting in lower quality applicants and high turnover.

In a court order spelling out the parameters for the April 1 report, McConnell asked for evidence that the state is implementing performance-based contracts for community services, in conjunction with a “flexible reimbursement model” that includes incentives to service providers for placing clients in jobs. 

The state’s report does not mention a flexible reimbursement model.

The consent decree requires that the state “ensure that its reimbursement model for day activity services is sufficiently flexible to allow providers to be reimbursed for costs” directly related to supporting integrated employment, including those that are carried out “when service provider staff is not face-to-face with a client.”

The decree goes so far as to cite specific reimbursable activities, including negotiating with employers and counseling clients by telephone, which are not covered by the current system.

Currently, BHDDH reimburses private agencies for daytime services according to the amount of time each worker spends with a client. The time must be documented for each client and worker in 15-minute increments. Agencies are not reimbursed when clients are absent, for whatever reason. Unless a client has 100 percent attendance, the agency cannot collect the full amount of funding that BHDDH authorizes for each person on an annual basis.

In response to McConnell’s request for information on performance-based contracts, the state’s report says those are still in the planning stages in all agencies governed by the state’s Executive Office of Human Services, including BHDDH. The report indicated BHDDH would have performance-based contracts in place with service providers during the next fiscal year.  The consent decree says performance-based contracts were to have implemented by Jan. 1, 2015.

 

Consent Decree Requires its Own Budget

The 2014 agreement between the state and the Justice Department requires that the state maintain a budget that can track the amount spent on consent decree compliance that is distinct from general expenditures on behalf of adults and adolescents with developmental disabilities.

Besides the planned $5 million in wage increases, the state’s compliance report cites another $1,870,474 in enhanced services targeted for a total of 75 individuals who would move to supported employment from a sheltered workshop or a segregated day program during the next fiscal year.

McConnell had asked the state for individualized funding information and other information that “follows the person” as each of the individuals under the jurisdiction of the consent decree makes the transition from a sheltered workshop to community-based employment or integrated day services.

So that the court, the monitor, and lawyers for both sides can track specific individuals’ progress over time while protecting their privacy, McConnell said that each person should be identified by a letter code that blocks personally identifiable information.

The state did not submit any information that could be tracked on an individual level, but its report says that it has contracted with the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College to reconfigure an existing “Employment and Day Supports Survey” to accomplish that goal.

Beginning in June, the Sherlock Center will conduct the survey quarterly, providing all the requested data and enabling “ongoing measurement of targets related to the consent decree at the individual level,” according to the report.

BHDDH already has a $675,000 contract with the Sherlock Center to provide technical expertise and guidance to private agencies converting from segregated programs to community-based day services in a so-called “Conversion Institute” required by the consent decree. Governor Raimondo would keep that level of funding for the Conversion Institute in her budget proposal for the next fiscal year.

The state is “working systematically” with Sherlock Center on the Conversion Institute, as well as with direct support agencies, “to entirely transform the delivery system” for supported employment and integrated day services in Rhode Island, according to the report.

The state’s report identifies a total of 3,076 individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities under the purview of the consent decree, including 99 who left high school in the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 academic years.

The consent decree requires integrated employment for 75 adults formerly in sheltered workshops or segregated day programs by Jan. 1, 2016, and the state ’s report counted 101 who had met that goal.

Another of the decree’s requirements is that all of the 99 students who left high school in the past two years were to have jobs by July 1, 2015, but as of April 1, the state had identified 37 in that category who have work.  

Moseley, the monitor, told the judge in his most recent report report that his conversations with private providers and with BHDDH staff indicate that the agencies are not receiving any extra support to place people in jobs and may not be able to keep up the current pace.

 

Other Consent Decree-Related Funding

The state’s April 1 submission enumerates other consent decree expenditures, from July 1, 2014 through the end of the next fiscal year, June 30, 2017, at the three agencies responsible for implementation: BHDDH, the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) and the Office of Rehabilitation Services of the Department of Human Services (ORS.)

The categories and amounts are:

  • $800,000 in each of the current and previous fiscal years for a consent decree “trust fund” to help direct service agencies with start-up costs for converting from sheltered workshop operations and segregated day programs to community-based supports.
  • $244,260 to the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDDS) and its State Employment Leadership Network (SELN) for guidance and technical assistance in transforming the state’s system of services. The SELN is a partnership between the NASDDS and Institute of Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston.
  • ·A tripling of the ORS budget for services to individuals with developmental disabilities, from $884,370 in the first fiscal year of the consent decree (July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015)  to a projected $2,603,374 in the next fiscal year.
  •  More than $300,000 a year, through the next fiscal year, budgeted by RIDE for personnel and contracts to help implement the consent decree, in addition to supports provided by individual school districts to transition-aged special education students.
  • A total of $591,244 for new leadership positions focused on implementation of the consent decree: a consent decree coordinator, a chief transformation specialist, an employment specialist and a program development director.

Moving to Fill Leadership Gap

The most critical of the posts is that of the consent decree coordinator, Mary Madden, whose position gives her authority to bring about cooperation among BHDDH, ORS, and RIDE in implementing the consent decree, according to the report.

As recently as December, Moseley and lawyers for the DOJ had expressed concerns that the coordinator’s position, subordinate to BHDDH director Montanaro, did not have enough clout and that leadership was foundering. 

Since then, Madden has been appointed as the coordinator on a permanent basis and reports directly to the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Roberts, “with the full authority of the Secretary and the Governor,” according to the report.

“The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the deputy secretaries and each of the directors of the state agencies are personally involved in monitoring consent decree implementation” and are briefed regularly by Madden and by their representatives on an “Interagency Consent Decree Team,” the report said.

 

 

Judge Losing Patience With RI in Disabilities Case

Federal court building on Kennedy Plaza in Providence, RI

By Gina Macris

An increasingly impatient federal judge warned March 14 that unless the state of Rhode Island shows progress soon in complying with terms of the so-called “sheltered workshop” consent decree of 2014, he is likely to impose sanctions.

 “To say I’m frustrated with the lack of progress is an understatement,” said Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.

“I’m not going to allow much procedural rollout before they (the state) will be sanctioned for non-compliance,” he said.  He did not elaborate.

The chief issue is a lack of money to implement the supports necessary to help people with developmental disabilities gain employment and participate in other non-work activities in their communities, as required by the consent decree.

The decree affects a total of about3,600 Rhode Island residents with disabilities, many of whom had been in sheltered workshops making sub-minimum wages in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The requirements of Title II were spelled out in 1999 in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled Olmstead v. L.C.

McConnell asked the lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Nicole Kovite Zeitler, why the DOJ had not already filed a contempt motion. 

Zeitler noted that at the previous status conference Jan. 26, the judge had indicated a willingness to work with both sides on cooperative measures short of contempt.

McConnell’s question also prompted a discussion ofshort-term deadlines the judge already has put in place that could lead up to a contempt finding if the state misses them.                                                                                                                       

By April 1, the state is to submit a status report on compliance that reflects a coordinated effort among the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH), the Rhode Island Department ofEducation (RIDE), and the Office of Rehabilitative Services of the Department of Human Services (ORS).  The report is intended to help the judge evaluate compliance.

On April 8, the heads of the three agencies, as well as the director of the state’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are to appear in court to produce evidence of compliance in a formal hearing.  If, after hearing the evidence, the judge finds the state must take additional steps, he will issue an order listing remedial actions.

DeSisto and DOJ lawyers originally proposed the compliance report be submitted by April 11 and the hearing be held April 18, but McConnell has moved each of those deadlines up by ten days.

Among other things, the latest order requires the state to present evidence that there is a defined budget for implementation of the consent decree that can link expenditures to results for specific individuals.

The court monitor for the case, Charles Moseley, who spoke by a telephone hookup to the hearing, said that while employment placements have increased, it appears those results have been achieved by community-based agencies acting independently of the consent decree. 

“The persons who have been placed have not been placed as a result of the budget but in spite of the budget,” Moseley said.

Like the judge, Moseley, Zeitler, and DeSisto each expressed their frustration with the lack of system-wide progress in implementing the consent decree, which has specific requirements and deadlines. 

Compliance is likely to come “late and piecemeal instead of on deadline,” said the DOJ’s Zeitler.

For example, she said, the consent decree required the state and the Providence School Department to help secure employmentbyJuly 1, 2015, of a total of  50 recent high school graduates who received special education. But so far, only 21 of them have been placed – less than half.

“Right now, we are at a bit of a crossroads,” Zeitler said.

The one bright spot cited during the hearing was appointment of Mary Madden as the secretary-level coordinator of the consent decree, with authority over the state agencies responsible for implementing its requirements. Madden was appointed at the end of January by Rhode Island Health and Human Services Secretary Elizabeth Roberts. Madden serves in an acting capacity.

 “I have a little ray of hope” that she’ll bring leadership to the state’s efforts, McConnell said.

Madden “in a short period of time has jumped into this,” Moseley said.

Madden, well known in the developmental disability community, is a policy fellow at the Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College, where she has conducted research on public policy issues such as inclusion, employment, self-determination, and the design of systems of care and support.

A seasoned administrator with 30 years’ experience, she was president and CEO of the J. Arthur Trudeau Memorial Center from 2003 to 2012 and executive director of the Ocean State Association of Residential Resources from 1987 to 2003.

Madden is also owner of M-CUBED Consulting in Narragansett, which helps non-profit developmental disabilities organizations with strategic planning, program design, and team building.